Justice in NZ - a big step forward.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7857337/Case-thrown-out-over-false-arrest

I could say that the Judgement by Justice France above was the first such step but I recall a case earlier this year in Raglan where a search and seizure of drugs was ruled illegal because the Detective involved didn't have a warrant to enter the property but had a 'concern' for the defendant's safety and entered the property illegally and happened to find drugs he believed belong to the accused person. Straight forward abuse of process in many people's mind but  the type of thing long accepted in New Zealand Courts where Judges for whatever reason didn't focus on the transparency of how the 'ends' was achieved. From memory in the Raglan case, the officer also broke into a shed despite fully well knowing that the person of his 'concern' was located elsewhere.

On the face of it in the drugs Hamilton/Raglan case might have belonged to the defendant, just as in the case ruled on by Justice France that the targets of the uncover's investigation were  possibly dealing in drugs and part of an 'expansion' plan by a gang to spread into Nelson. In both events the police had their theories and good information but then they went about breaking the law to achieve it, such law breaking, or breach of procedure was rejected in Raglan and now we see the same in Nelson. Some will say that the targets were lawbreakers and police were only doing their jobs.

Of course it isn't the job of police to break laws and it certainly isn't the job of the Courts to turn a blind eye to law breaking, of any type - particularly where the Courts are seen to condone the 'ends justifies the means' approach by police that may not let legalities get in the way. Over many years the Courts might have been seen to accept irregularities without comment, the message to police being that there behaviour, if not condoned, wasn't an impediment to gaining convictions

Most people would agree that if police are not sanctioned to uphold the Law all areas of Justice are suddenly made grey. I'll mention 2 of my 'favourites' here; the lens in the Bain case, and the hairs on the blanket taken from the yacht of Scott Watson. In both cases the similarity; a case struggling for purchase, searches already made without success, then repeated later only to find pivotal evidence - normal result in a democratic country under the rule of Law: chuck the case out. But no, no matter how bad the case looks, how fill of holes it has become, how much logic is lacked in the sequence of events presented as evidence - the Courts have allowed them to continue on. Result? Miscarriages of Justice, one after another in a long line.

Bain, Watson and Thomas guilty despite planted evidence. Hall and Pora sentenced to life despite reliable information and proof that neither man was the killer in the particular crimes they were charged with. Others less clear but procedurally wrong, Tamihere - body found in the wrong place and with the watch an ex detective claimed he located Tamihere's son wearing. Rex Haig convicted on the testimony of a witness whose evidence was a supplied after a deal for immunity from prosecution. Ross Applegram (sp?) convicted like Tamihere, Hall, Watson and Pora on not only tainted evidence but also gaol house informers. Other similarities; same detective featuring in Bain and Watson case, Thomas and Tamihere, others possibly as well, coincidence or a feature of MOJ's in New Zealand? These number 9 here, the first five five are clearly innocent as was the main accused by the killer who got immunity and went onto kill again. At least 60% failures in Justice where the Judiciary have taken to look the other way or being willing to accept peripheral evidence when main evidence has failed.

All of these cases are those in which there has been Judicial tolerance to tampered with, planted, or withheld evidence. Of course tampered with, or planted evidence, is also that given by prison informers, accomplices or even principal offenders looking to escape prosecution. I don't for the moment remember the name of the person who killed the woman in Whangaporoa, earlier got immunity for another murder and went onto kill again. These are the men will say what they told, often with large embellishments  which on one hand sound contrived and bizzare, but on the other prejudicial and hopeful of getting a weak case across the line.

Watching all of this have been Judges, in the lower Courts, High Courts and those of appeal. In some cases Judges have looked to 'fill the gap' that might be shown in the credibility of evidence, or simply willing to overlook it and promote other evidence which 'proves' the defendant or convicted person guilty. Watched, apparently unconcerned that if any instance of police misconduct during an investigation then the whole case in doubt and should be thrown out. Or perhaps watched considering some other information they might know about the defendant but which wasn't in evidence, about his her character or badness - much as final guard preventing their escape.

On the process of repeats, the OIC of the case thrown out by Justice France 'happen's to also now be the man accused by Paul Davidson of giving inconsistent evidence about the secret, and illegal surveillance of another agency. The Minister of Police, relatively fresh to the job, talks about disappointment that the 'crooks' got away In Nelson or similar words but does not reprove who own department. So we can take it that at the top it is seen as okay for police to break the law even when the Courts rule firmly that is not.

I called this blog a big step forward. I believe it is but only if those, such as the Minister of Police, responsibly do their jobs and not lament broken laws but rather who might have got away. In the absence of that Justice Francis has kept the ball rolling as to what is not acceptable, perhaps this is the step toward cases when not only evidence, shown as planted or suspect, but where the logic of a Crown case or process defies credibility - being tossed out and investigators, the few they are that seem to populate the grey get prosecuted or kicked out leaving the integrity of police  with those that uphold it.

Kent Parker: Inside reports from the hate-sites.

Kent has been busy tidying up the JFRB site which he made private in late 2009. Of course like Counterspin and Guilty Free Forums JFRB (Justice for Robin Bain) has continued to leak. It was by reason of those leaks that information became available about the hate-siters stalking jurors and others. That's the way it was revealed that Melanie White wrote a false confession so distinct from reality that it would never have been accepted by a Court but charges nevertheless of attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice may have applied. The interesting thing about that 'confession' was that Melanie in a state of excitement kept changing the voice and perspective of the alleged 'confessor.' Real basic oversights, but thoroughly consistent with even police attempts at fabricated evidence, a false confession in the Bain case was no more ridiculous than the claim that eye lens had been photographed on the floor of Stephen's room out in the open days before it was found 'hidden' late at night under a ski boot. Or the other circumstances of the assertion that David sought to be seen on his paper round to provide an alibi - hello on that, the papers were never going to deliver themselves folks.

The most astounding leaks of all were probably those by Annette Curran's hate-site, where she utilised advertising that allowed entry by any person on the internet into the secret site. Capital D for Dumbo on that one. But what was revealed was very sick, people plotting to have children taken off those they felt were supporters of David Bain, Glenda O'Brien and others freely talking about false information they provided the SST who willingly acted upon it. All this under the guise they were 'right thinking' people. It has never occurred to them that 'right thinking' people don't plot against others using lies, don't persecute others on information that is fabricated, or spread lies and rumour in an effort to 'win.' No winning was ever going to come from what the hate-siters took it upon themselves to do, even when they saw themselves as messengers of the 'truth' engineering a deliberate campaign to keep David Bain in prison for crimes time has shown that he not only didn't do, but that he couldn't have done.

No members of any of these hate-sites were sworn to secrecy and no decent person finding themselves amongst a rabid bunch of nutters was obliged to either stay or keep 'mum' on the bad work afoot. So good on the infiltrators, the deliberate ones, and those that were just shocked and thought that they should do something about it and continue to monitor the activities of the hate-sites. It was from these activities slipped the information as to who was feeding the hate-sites information, ex police in some circumstances, media, some attached to the Otago University and the list goes on.

Now as we read of attacks on Justice Binnie's report of those that haven't even read it we see another step in the campaign.  But the participants are fewer now, some have simply had enough, others have put away worrying about doors on a van or what this person or that person said, or what somebody 'reckoned' and focused simply on that final death scene, the one that tells the entire story of the deaths of Bain family members. A scene that not one person in New Zealand that gave evidence, arm chair experts, media experts using smoke and mirrors has ever been able to reconcile in a way that disproved the fact that Robin suicided. The man both with blood smears on his palms and his fresh blood on a towel in the laundry. 10,000 or more pages of evidence, photographs, discussion of trajectory, blow back from a non-exiting head wound, spatter patterns that excluded another person being in the room when Robin shot himself showed more simply than the man with the damaged and bloody hands was the killer of his family, nothing more simple than that.

So as the hate-sites continue to leak and be purged by a desperate Kent Parker there is no distance in the world between the deaths of Margaret and three of her children than the blood left on their father's hands. There is something very sad about this whole case, those that support Robin destroy the memory of his family. Why do I say that, for the reason above there is no distance between the deaths of the Bain's and the blood smears found on the father's hands, not an inch or a millimetre. Millions of dollars has been spent to prove otherwise, as futile as arguments that water runs uphill, or that the earth is flat when any cop worth is salt asked himself why, if Robin had been a victim of murder, was there blood on his palms, cuts and bruises to his hands, blood flow across his lower left cheek unconnected to the flow of blood from his wound, and then stopped and listened to what Dempster had to say, and wait for test results as to whose fresh blood it was on that towel in the laundry.

So speaking of futility we see Kent Parker trying to clean up a mess he made years ago, much of which was recorded years ago as big mouths bragged about what ex cops had told them, bragged about talking to witnesses and how about how many 'jurors' they had. Futile, insane panic from those without guts to simply say they were wrong.

Police top brass working against themselves?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10841490

The foregoing was published today describing lack of police progress in dealing with culture change toward correcting sexual inappropriateness within the force and a perceived scepticism by police dealing with complaints from the public of sex crimes.

Earlier this week there was a poll which indicated that their was public dissatisfaction with the level of trust held in the police generally and the way the police acted aggressively and over the top in some circumstances. That poll was attacked by a Deputy Commissioner and a number of allegations made against it which apparently lack any support or factual basis according to the organisation that ran the poll. In recent days there was a second a poll run on Yahoo that showed those that either don't trust the police, or weren't sure if they did or not, were in the majority compared to those that trusted the police.

Interspersed with this we had bizarre claims from the President of the Police Association that if police funding wasn't increased then gang members would infiltrate the police and a claim that there had already been efforts to do so.

The link above shows that progress has been slow in remedying a culture change. The fact that the above report is officially sanctioned may be why to this point that report has not been directly attacked, although a regular fall back positioin has been placed with the claim that progress has been made this year and a promise that police are getting on top of the situation. So three different situations where there is criticism, two are attacked by police top brass and the third is fudged.

The first poll mentioned released this week was attended by conclusions that the public wanted to see an independent authority investigating complaints against police, this drew the most criticism from police hierarchy. Rank and file members of the police don't get to speak publicly, the police hierarchy does and so also the Police Association. To be fair even politicians within the Government were highly sceptical about O Connor's, from the Police Association, claims of gang attempts at infiltration of the police force. So I think it is fair to say that police are represented by a hierarchy that is self-protective and an association that stretches reality. From an outsider's point of view those representations could be argued to deliver the reason why there is a loss of public confidence in the Police, one refuses to consider all evil within and the other seeks to create scenarios of all evil unless police funding is increased.

When the current Commissioner came into the job it was attended by the fact that he would be objective because of experiences working overseas, that he was in fact not 'culture bound', was a good manager and so on. A situation far from what we see represented today. The frustrating thing for many nzers, as the polls show, is that the police retain themselves from public opinion and expectation that the police, like any organisation, should not be responsible only to it's self. Some clues are thick on the ground that the police 'culture' that has been criticised is in fact a narrow culture of resistance at the top of police. If police management can't be attuned to modern standards of accountability, unwilling to be confident they're running a ship that is, or can be open to external scrutiny, then that is where the problem lies, not with the rank and file.

The introduction of women into the NZ Police has been significant benefit, but too soon we have seen resistance from, yet again, police administration for women finding their own way forward in the police, this is another symptom of what is wrong, not with police generally, but with police administration and public relations. The easiest way on the surface now is to no longer tolerate a police administration that resists open public accountability and instead adopts polices of 'retraining'  and other clichés to iron out problems. We saw most recently a senior police officer give evidence in an extradition case that for all appearances demonstrated to the NZ  citizens that police officer's evidence was at odds with the truth. Soon after the Commissioner spoke about his confidence in the officer concerned, not so subtly telling the public that he was the boss and what he said went - this from a public servant, no inclination toward accountability but speaking out with an authority buried deep in a closed culture.

But why does any organisation want to remain a closed shop and above the law despite public concerns that problems, conflicts, or even alleged law breaking are not dealt with in a transparent way? Why does the police brass not understand that the public have a right to know that police are liable for their actions like every other member of society. Why do police want to continue to operate under some feudal system of lords and serfs - probably because they can. Probably because they've ridden the edge of accountability so often that they simply adopt the old tried and true positions that allow them to remain responsible to themselves with only a semi-independent watch dog that has restricted powers. A watchdog which we have already seen takes an inordinate amount of time to complete findings and make recommendations which are most often answered by police with the claim that the changes have already taken place.

Clouding all of this, and added to the public unease, is that the 40 year old Crewe case is not resolved, Scott Watson remains in prison despite the evidence of scientists of hairs turning up on a blanket between critical 'searches,' Teina Pora in prison for another man's crime and a list of others that continues on. All in fact linked to a 'blind' police administration that might change personnel but never it's spots. This odd, and damaging holding of power and secrecy as if by a handed down parchment of some secret oath to self protect, while rank and file police day by day go admirably about their work often unappreciated because of a insular management inherited from one generation to another that conflicts with public perception of what modern police practices should be.

How about the appointment of an independent civil servant at the top of the police, somebody from outside the ranks to bring along the belated culture change and oversee the formation of an independent body with full powers to investigate complaints from the public about police misconduct. A manager without a recent police history of employment within New Zealand, an ex Judicial officer, high ranking civil servant or someone from the armed services with no axe to grind for or against the NZ Police - there would be nothing to lose from such an appointment but everything to gain not just for the public, but for the rank and file police working at the front far away from the ivory towers and hidden parchments.

Confused hate-siters?

Well yes, that goes without saying. But somebody actually able to confuse them even more? Try this.

Donaldob has yet again dug deeper in his latest comment on Counterspin where he draws attention to a blog by Chris Patterson, a civil lawyer, at http://www.patterson.co.nz/site/#blog&1259

Although Patterson is arguing that David is guilty and shouldn’t get compensation, Patterson says:

“A finding that David Bain did not, on the balance of probabilities, kill his family is not a finding that he is innocent, but is a finding that the prosecution against him should probably never have been brought, and that the jury should not (if they had all the currently available evidence before them) have ever delivered guilty verdicts.”

The poster Donaldbob from Otago University whose main impetus seems to be attacking the Jury in a variety of facetious ways tracked down the above blog by Chris Patterson.

I won't try to explain Chris Patterson's blog overall because I can't make head nor tail of it in many places. He was apparently in Dunedin at the time of the Bain familicide, presumably at Law School. Yet in a few short sentences he's said everything the hate-siters want to hear and everything they don't, maybe he should be congratulated for that.

Interestingly, he doesn't state any facts, but suggests a reader tears a strip of paper in two and on one half list the evidence against David and on the other the evidence against Robin. Though, most conveniently,  he makes no lists himself yet is somehow assured that the list for David will require extra paper. What a quaint and awkward fellow, and it is quite a fine distinction to be able to confuse the already deeply confused hate-siters. Or indeed to write an opinion piece making serious assertions but not offering any support for that other than having woken up one morning in Dunedin when it was cold.

This has left poor old donbob unsure whether he's Arthur or Martha which has set back years of productive counselling that left him with the strongest presumption that he was Martha after all. What a conundrum for him added to by the fact that the bewildered Chris Patterson suggests Binnie's finding is that David should never have been charged and prosecuted. He's exactly right on that. However this part which the hang-bainers will be wishing to concentrate on “A finding that David Bain did not, on the balance of probabilities, kill his family is not a finding that he is innocent” is wrong. A finding that David is innocent on BOP is exactly that – a finding that he is innocent.

Overall Chris does nail it, despite his fascination with making lists and tearing paper to shreds, Binnie will have found David innocent on the BOP. I believe Ian Binnie will be critical that the prosecution ever proceeded thus fitting with Chris's interpretation. When the police and Crown went ahead hiding evidence, planting evidence, an incomplete inquiry and overcome with an impression of guilt those were extraordinary circumstances for which Bain must be compensated. This case wasn't about a lack of evidence, it was about hidden, planted and misinterpreted evidence, mantra's and impressions of guilt fed through the media by police. It was the police's fault that Robin wasn't investigated, that such facts as blood on Robin's palms and damaged hands were overlooked, along with red material under his fingernails. The police never paused to test not only whose blood it was on the towel in the bathroom, instead presuming wrongly that it was Davids, but when they found out they then ignored the fact that before he killed himself Robin Bain wiped a heap of blood off himself from a freshly bleeding wound. That should have assisted them to finally understand that final death scene was in fact a suicide scene, and Robin's damaged hands, recent bleeding, his blood inside the barrel indicated the obvious fact that Dempster arrived at before Detective Sergeant Doyle decided, lo and behold that they 'had a murder to solve.'

Robin Bain's blood.

Followers of the Bain case will be familiar with the questions put to David about blood found on a towel in the laundry on the morning his family were killed.  David was asked how the blood got onto the towel, an important question in context of the murder inquiry but the presumption that David should know how the blood arrived there tells us exactly what the mindset of the officer was. The detective had already decided that David was guilty and therefore knew how the blood got that onto the towel or was somehow at least responsible for an explanation.

Leaving that for a moment to look at another significant piece of evidence the computer turn on time. This was heralded as being critical by police because it proved David wrote the suicide note. It was so critical that Detective Anderson timing the tracing of the computer turn on time with an expert gave the expert a time 2 minutes earlier than the actual time. He would later explain this situation as one he would have 'cleared up,' or words to that effect, had he been asked. The reality is the significance of the computer message was a foundation of the case against David yet first of all police would mislead the technician about the actual time of the test, then bury that information thus giving weight to the Crown's false assertion that David was indeed home when the computer was turned on. This went further though,  a police computer 'expert' that calculated the turn on time for the Crown would later admit that his opinion evidence on the computer turn on time was an impossibility. Somewhere along the line a police officer gives a false time to a technician allowing another impossibility that David was home before the computer was turned on, later an expert calculates that time using a mid point between 2 stated times, one of which was an impossibility but which however gives the 'right' result to support the claim that David was home, turned the computer on and wrote the suicide note. Some readers will recall that the Crown toward the end of their case conceded that Robin had most likely turned on the computer as they would drop that infamous, and wrong, claim that Robin's fingerprints should have been found on the rifle. If they knew that the computer can't have been turned on when David was home why did they say the opposite for so many years, why did Anderson keep mum about the truth of the time, or Kleintjes manufacture a false and impossible relative time point to 'prove' David was home. More to the point would be the question as to why the Crown ever let such material into evidence when they knew it was false, if they didn't know it was false they would never have made concessions in relation to it during trial number 2.

By diverting to the fingerprints, and the computer turn on time, we have the opportunity to show how the police put their theories into practice, they simply misled on the facts. This wasn't earlier in the inquiry, this was at the point of the 'guilty mindset' being all absorbing. The bloody towel, on the other hand, was in the early days of the inquiry before David had even been charged. On what basis could David have been asked to explain  blood on a towel, that time would show belonged to his father? None, absolutely none. Looking at that question another way was it fair to ask David to explain something that he didn't know about and later use that against him, or was this an example of the police pulling a case based on something they were yet to have evidence to support? Wouldn't normal procedure be to test whose blood it was on the towel and leave the traumatised young man alone until that fact was discovered? Yes it would be normal, but this wasn't a normal investigation because police had already decided David was guilty as evidenced by that question.

Moving to the revelation that it was Robin's blood on the towel, blood soaked as it has been described in a damning way against David. If it had been so important for David to explain how blood got on the towel, then in 2003 when police learnt that it was in fact Robin's blood on the towel, which fitted therefore, with the murder/suicide scenario - why then did the police not re-evaluate their entire position? By then they already had an opinion from their own pathologist that Robin's wound was likely suicide, they knew from their own files that David had not been home when the computer was booted, they knew of Robin's state of mind, that it would also be expected that his fingerprints would not be on the rifle, that Robin's palms had blood on them and that his hands had bleed - a match no doubt for the towel. Instead they kept 'manfully' on, presenting again their discredited case as though there was no alternative such as, for example, conceding that Robin was plainly the killer.

Why would the Crown and police not be disturbed to find that it was Robin's blood on the towel, a towel found contemporaneously with Robin's body with blood on his hands? Wasn't it a reasonable and deduct-able conclusion that towel with Robin's blood on it showed even more clearly that he had killed first his family and then himself? Yes it was. I'm unaware of whether the Crown had any explanation for that blood which previously had been 'evidence' against David, even though his hands were clean, he had no recent wounds that would have produced blood and unlike his father he didn't have red matter found under his nails. I've read that one of Robin's wounds was across a vein on his hand, veins of course bleed profusely but because of the difficulty Robin had cleaning his palms, leaving smear marks, one would expect that he would have had similar trouble with the tops of his hands, particularly because of the abrasions and bruises there that would have been becoming quite sore as he reflected on what he had done whilst he cleaned himself up as well as he could.

Any rugby player or contact sport player knows that besides an artery or a deep cut, a forehead wound etc, a blow to the nose causes profuse blood. The blood on the towel, that on Robin's palms and damaged hands, the evidence of the fight in Stephen's room completed the basic picture of Robin's guilt, not tricky science, not loaded questions, hidden times, and hidden statements but straight forward proof, Robin had been fighting that morning, he had the blood on his hands and on the towel he used, to prove that.

That bloody towel is the towel now around the necks of the Crown, it was the Crown that accepted the 'importance' of the towel when the blood was thought to Stephen's but never tested, washed off  from the hands of David. But when it proved to be Robin's blood, good proof that he was the killer - it was no longer important. Looking back over some notes taken from Joe Karam's Trial By Ambush today I saw that I noted that Detective's Van Turnhout's 'recovered memory' of seeing a lens on the chair in David's room had never been recorded in the 15 years he had forgotten it before his memory burst at the second trial. And on those glasses that the police have so badly discredited themselves over, it has long been recorded that David's vision was 75% normal without glasses.

Every where you look in this case police misconduct has been at work by a few officers, but the greater worry is that the Crown chose to overlook that. I suspect Binnie's report, if it has highlighted these obvious facts sits uncomfortably in the care of the Justice Department, uncomfortable as Robin must have felt wiping his own copious spilt blood on that towel.

No answer from Kenty.

Sometimes I think old Kenty has got the huff with me even though I could never imagine why. I've always been pretty helpful to Kent. I warned him of the possibility of being sued, something which he chose to ignore. I offered advice once he had been sued that he didn't have a dog's show and that he should retract and settle. Now, by all accounts, his own twisted sisters are plating a rope in anticipation of him copping it in record time in  the Auckland High Court next year. One thing about the sisters is that they enjoy any lynching and apparently there is much excitement at the prospect of Kent's metaphorical hanging in 2013.

On the subject of Kent rejecting helpful advice, or painful remedies to help him recognise that his feathers don't have to have all fallen out to indicate his goose is cooked, I wrote him the following in response to receiving information that he was still at it publishing defamatory material on his rotten hate-site. But he's not talking, he's got the pip with me for some reason, either that or he's deliberately trying to hurt my feelings. Oh gosh.

Perhaps in Kent's mind he considers that not removing the defamatory material may prove that he's not responsible for it, an old and rejected argument he's used before.

Dear Kent

Kent the following are examples of public defamation on your site Counterspin. The yellow highlighted comments are from your site in the form of a blog of avid David Bain hater who purports in the circumstances of the blog to be an ‘impartial observer.’ The red comments point out why the comments are defamatory, these were sent to me by an appropriate party who monitors your site for defamatory comment and hate speech. In these particular circumstances the comments bring defamatory comments linked with the purpose of attempting to engender public hatred against David Bain and his legal advisers. Both yourself and the author are responsible for these comments. The comments can not be sustained with fact, and do not constitute reasonable opinion because they are divorced from physical evidence. As you are aware a verdict of not guilty in a New Zealand High Court has been entered on this matter, therefore the comments are most likely in contempt of the Court. Not withstanding any of the above, there are unconfirmed reports that Justice Ian Binnie has concluded that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. Therefore the whole concept of his implied guilt, alleged behaviour and conduct is dissolved in law.

I will be forwarding this on to other parties for their consideration. Due to your experiences of date you may, or may not react to my advice that you remove this material, the poster, and or shut down your site. It does you a great disservice with the charges that you already face that you continue to allow defamation and hate-speech on your public site.

Yours faithfully

Against David Bain first,as there is more evidence pointing to him as being the perpetrator than there is against his father.(no there isn’t and according to the leaked Binnie report this is on dangerous ground)

Just prior to the trial David Bain's lawyer told the Crown prosecutor that David was going to admit to wearing those glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday and the days prior. (This is disputed and there is no proof. Mr X's implication is that David lied)

Now to those scratches or bruises on David Bain's torso. How did they get there? The only person who can answer that question is David Bain and he says he doesn't know how the answer to that question.
Now his defence team say that those marks weren't there on the Monday morning because when Dr Pryde examined Bain he strip-searched him and didn't note those marks on a diagram on which he had noted those bruises on David Bain's head,that nick on his knee and the tattoo that David Bain on his left arm above the bicep.
But does this mean that Dr Pryde actually had Bain remove that T-shirt that he had been wearing?
When he was giving his speech at that Injustice Conference Bain said he was medically strip-searched and that every orifice was examined.
As an impartial observer I have to ask the question "How did Bain get those scratches on his torso". I can't help thinking that they are linked to those fibres from the green jersey that the killer wore that were found beneath Stephen's fingernails. (In this he is ignoring the fact that there is evidence that those scratches did not exist that morning and are therefore irrelevant)

However an impartial observer would have thought it would be rather unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple. (No, it’s very common)

an affidavit was signed and sent to the Ministry of Justice[24/8/2010] by Laniet's best friend at Bayfield College. She said that Laniet had told her that David had been molesting her. Her friend said she had to leave home and she found a place for her to stay at. But a couple of weeks later David came to the school and told her everything would be ok if she came home again. (The writing of the affidavit and submission of it is one thing. Publication of this summary of the content is defamatory)

Disturbed by David's behaviour as a child Margaret and robin sought leave from the Church so as to take him to Darwin for pschiatric assessment and counselling. David denied under oath that he had ever had pschiatric counselling. (This is accusing David of perjury) 

                                                  ----------------------------------------------

Some of the comments in red give a clue in my opinion that Binnie's report is likely to have closely examined a culture of having approached the false imprisonment of David Bain, by both the police and Crown, with a pre-determined 'guilty mindset' that saw evidence, or only sought explanations of evidence that corresponded with that 'guilty mindset.' In other words not only did some of the investigators pre-suppose David's guilt but also did personnel employed by the Crown. This if analysed by Ian Binnie will be a critical watershed in the fair and unfair administration of Justice in New Zealand for it would acknowledge that both police and Crown can be, and are at times, influenced by perceived guilt of a suspect to the point of closing down all other avenues of inquiry, and indeed as happened in the Bain case, 'finding' and 'hiding' evidence to make their case. Of course that presents another concern, a practical one facing the defence teams of Watson and Pora, for example - where a suspect is chosen and his or her guilt manufactured by the treatment of evidence  and evidence which is 'found' after the fact of earlier searches on so on.

Ken Parker presents as someone unconcerned about David's innocence for example, he saw an opportunity to profit from persecuting him. Others, including in the inquiry and the Crown Law office, appear never having been willing to even consider it - I don't know which is worse because both are a modern form of cannibalism where a person if not eaten is destroyed by a culture of empowerment to Judge all others with whim, convenience, indifference or just hate.

The Bain Case: Another shadow?

While speculation builds about the detail of Ian Binnie's report into the circumstances surrounding the false imprisonment of David Bain I have been concentrating my expectations on details on the inquiry, hidden evidence, biased media reports and so on. The following has reminded me that the report may not only include such things, additional to a narrative showing David innocent on the BOP one speculator considers that the report could go further as the following suggests....

'Actually, I think he is quite likely to say that the supposed evidence of David’s guilt only stands up if viewed from a prior stance of guilt. It is an issue that has prevailed throughout the case from the very start, and has clearly coloured the judgment of the appeal courts and Crown prosecutors.

He has been asked to report on the circumstances of the case as well as on innocence, and I think this is significant in the circumstances. You may be right, but I hope you’re wrong J   

Fairly hard to argue that the circumstances Ian Binnie has reported on doesn't include a 'prior stance of guilt' adopted by first of all the police but indeed also the prosecutors, Courts and Appeal Courts - because they too got it wrong, possibly also deliberately. It's easy to see that the NZ Courts were indeed influenced by a prior stance of guilt. While I've been critical of that stance earlier I had assumed, as I've written earlier, that the blame would begin with the Dunedin police involved in the inquiry and go little further. Even though it is the case that I've always seen our Courts as complicit in the Miscarriage of Justice perpetrated on David Bain.

The circumstances are clear, our Courts failed badly in the Bain case; particularly so when it became apparent that evidence had been with held and that a mantra of guilt was being sung in the popular media, most apparently under the tutorship of the self-acclaimed expert on the case Martyn Van beynan. When something was torn down in the Courts there would be replies in the media such as 'no evidence' against Robin, 'scratches' on the chest of David from a fight with Stephen. It's hardly likely that any informed Court was ever going to accept such 'evidence' when it was not contained in the transcripts but something very odd was at work. The Court of Appeal referring to an exit wound of Robin's head that the records shows didn't exist is a strong clue that if they were aware of all the evidence that they didn't understand it, even before they put themselves in the role of a Jury, knowing full well that wasn't their precinct.

Whilst they were willing to assume the role of Judges and Jury they were never mindful of the beast that lurked in the background even though it yelled out loudly of a MOJ. No meaningful inquiry into the prime suspect, a lens found after previous searches, a witness confirming that David couldn't have been home when the computer was turned on and the last message from Robin written, another confirming that the glasses said to belong to David did not, the red material under Robin's nails, the damage to his hands and the blood on his palms, his fragile mental state, the used cartridges kept in his van and so the list goes on. Just one of those points was enough to hear the message of a MOJ - but no it was ignored and instead our Courts looked to put fantasy together to withstand solid proof of innocence and even more solid proof of a deliberate MOJ.

That beast could first be heard the morning DS Weir reported to DS Doyle of finding a lens in a room already searched, and as Lee Hinkleman points out 'apparently' seen or shown in a photograph taken days before it was 'found.' Even by then Doyle had already 'decided' not to investigate the main and obvious suspect because he had a 'murder to solve.' What other language would any Court or tribunal need to identify that a culture of a prior stance of guilt prevailed. In NZ obviously a lot more, with all the clear evidence of suicide, other evidence to show that police had deliberately withheld evidence which in every case was unhelpful to them and not David yet still our Courts turned a blind eye - a common practice or a one off?

Money says a common practice in at least some cases, certainly the Bain and Thomas cases, also that of Pora, Allan Hall and perhaps one presenting as another of the worst - Scott Watson. So my correspondent says that they hope I'm wrong in my evaluation the report will not extend to the Judiciary. Well, I in fact also hope I'm wrong. If the Thomas case is still stalled after 30 years when others should be charged for being involved in the murders, or the framing of Thomas, we do need Ian Binnie to have analysed what has, and can wrong in our Justice system at the level of the prosecution and Judiciary. Fingers crossed on that.